The Evening Star SATURDAY, JUNE 3, 1876.

Evening Star, Issue 4140, 3 June 1876, Page 2

The Evening Star SATURDAY, JUNE 3, 1876.

Ik oni' last article on the telegraph, tariff in * to evening journals, wo under- ! took to show opinion ;^ress^ll^t, year- hy the Acting dommiseioner o$ 'o graphs, when urged to uaotxtm a reduction i of telegraphie rat«t» lsvpsDf Oren&g jow- f nals, viz., that t&e"pif&dd't ooa- ® trlbuted very largely, if not mainly, to the j loss the department suffers annually, was C

not in any way supported by facts. It will fas recollected that Mr Reynolds’ objection of a twofold character ; (I) That if furtij or coifottrioas saa th* Ims to the department ; aqrd (2) the nak of the wires clfigged at the several s6k tiopa vroujd be in&teaSed r correspondingly And he view-of the ab much by giving the experience of the department or by showing the effects of the existing Press tariff upon its receipts, as by q notations from a report by a Royal Commit''won that had enquired into the working tele « c -CreatJEhataimWhen matter was before the House of Representatives last year he was ready with forcible quotations from that report, which was thorou'gh-going in its condemnatien of Tress telegraphy; baf Ke' r here from that report emanated, how •it had been received by the interest which it mpre immediately affected, or whether it had been stamped with the approval of tha English Cabinet.- Its date shows that it mast have come alinost wet from the press to be.mailed in July, at which time it was not , public property reven in England. Mr j'ETNOLDB, to suit' his purpose, treated it with the weight that should be accorded to a report by a Royal Commission that has received official confirmation, in which case it may be assumed its recommendations or suggestions will at some period'be carried out—a view of it that was taken by nearly every member who spoke on the subject—but it was to all intents and purposes an ex parte statement by a biassed official, whiofr the Imperial Go-' vemment have declined to act iipon • > though, of course, this latter fact could not fi* v ® J )een known to Mr .Reynolds. This English report has such an Important bearing upon the subject in hand—mdeed, so for from, being against, as Mr Reynolds made it out to be, It Is actually a strohgforgumeht in support of the claims of the owning papers- that we think it right to <yiy a word or two about it, The Commissioners were three in number, and their chairman was a Mr ‘Weaver, who was formerly .secretary and manager of the International Telegraph Company, which, it will, be recollected, owned the wires in England previous to their being purchased by the State in 1869. It is not unnatural to suppose that Mr Weaver’s conservative notions, so strongly exhibited in mbhy of the regulations issued by the old company, should* lead him to view, in -a hostile spirit, the reforms initiated by Mr } Scudamore, which, have done 'so much toward!) popularising the telegraph in Great Britain—reforms which, to his credit, be it ever said, Sir J olios Vogel, daring his presidency of the. department in this Colony, hasalways adopted, without any hesitation, This an position has received general credence : England, and we have seen it; asserted in many newspapers—even in the tondon ‘ Times, ’ —that not only' was Mr Weaver biassed against the postal-telegraph system but that able to,influence hia brother commissioners, and that the report was in foot Mr Weaver’s, and his alone. For instance, it was said in one paper— An independent authority should have been called in, and Mr Wkavee have been assisted by two gentlemen who would have had the Courage of their own (xaiviotions on the Question at issue, instead of acquiescing in all tbeTecommendations of their chief, not because they believed them, but becausd ",the_wide experience and practical knowledge oi Wb4Vße.*‘

The English Commissioners, or rather Mr Weaver, presented an “eminently unsatisfactory” picture of the condition of the telegraph sopvioo of Britain, tw it wasconducted a year since, and to reduce the! large loss at which it was worked annually, they' Proposed increases in both Press add public rates—in the latter case to the tune of

I between 100 and 200, per cent. Bat Mt Disraeli’s Government appear to have thought that the British public would not lightly view a proposal to raise the price of telegtams to the extent suggested, and were no more disposed to entertain the idea than we should imagine Sir J. Vogel would be to impose upon us a half-crown tariff again after the public enjoying the 'ten-words-a-shilling rate for four years, to make up a deficiency of L 12,000 a-year. It is true, as Mr Reynolds pointed out, that the Com-, misaioners reported .that the Press, tariff at Home —and it is only‘with this part of the report that we are now dealing—was > a “fruitful source of loss.” We do not think Lord John Manners is of that, opinion, as our reading has not enabled us to discover that the tariff has been altered; on the contrary, we have every reason to believe it remains what it was before Mr Weaver made his report. Besides, it has been clearly shown that' Press telegraphy in England is not conducted at a fruitful loss to the de-

jiartment, for Mr Lemon must be as weQl aware as ourselves of the many means the department in England has adopted to protect itself from possible loss in this branch of its business.*: He must needs know that

in England country offices are only kept open at night for the convenience of the local newspapers, on condition of a sufficient quantity of news matter being sent to pay the expenses of transmission, or of the deficiency being made up by a special paiyment, this payment being decreased as the quantity of Press messages is increased ; that in several townsnoextra payment whateyeris demanded for keeping the town offices open, it bring, found that the news telegraphed is snfficieat not only to pay the expenses but to yield a reasonable profit in addition, and—most important fact of all—that the deportment has again and again refused to the Exchange Telegraph Company permission to extend their wires where they were wanted exclusively for Press purposes, because such an extension “ would deprive the .Post ;Offic« of revenue. ” All of which .proves, we tKlhlq the very reverse of what Mr Reynolds intended the English report should prove when he read it to the House of Representatives. There is just one other remanc.we have to make before we leave Mr Weaver’s report In England; no such great distinction is . made between morning and evening jodrnals as is drawn by ouf tariff. There.the former my one shilling for 100 words, While the

latter get seventy-five words for the same money; all messages can, be sent at any hour of the day, and there is 'no restriction of the length of the messages.Here, if a inesshge is despatched to a second or third paper, each is charged full rates, la England the rate has advantages which we should like to see extended to the Colonies.' For Instance, if a message is sent -from Edinburgh (say) to seven dailies in London, to the three in Manchester,, the two in Plymonth, and one in Aberdeen, each of .the thirteen papers would be ; bTiarged the samel viz. (2 l-13deach), the initial shilling beihg charged on the first message, and ’ the duplT cate rate of twopence, upon the other twelve. We have said already that the assertion that the department al this Colony was conducted at an annual loss, mainly because of the cheap rate at which it transmitted Press messages, was not supported’ in any Way. It could not be, for the facts show just the opposite. We ask WasParHamentevertold, or will the General Manager toll ns, what are the proportions (in regard to cost of trananussion and revenue ;rewvedVof Press messages to private ones, OTii to WuaS lextent the wires'Fare'Ußed < jby G«mnmeßtim)Pgßggg% vhfdi/retru'n J ndtr«ie . farthing «partttfcnt r diht t ahereasl hi nituAber quarter by quarter? Furtho#Hf)the T Press business is such a “ fruitful loss, ” as Mr RsrcfQLPs says it is, why does the General Manager encourage it by grant-1

ing facilities few eeriduur I s , e °UeAgue, Major Atkinson, which TrisSS *t*A approval of an eSColoniM i reasurer, and to abolish all distinctions in J ? n "ft’ornS a £ ritt *•“? would >» «1"»1 m its operation, the evening papers could mea l> whde thg department would receive a substantial'.,addition to its revenue. S Mr Reynolds avers it absolutely Sf v „of«. the commend itself to the .Colonial Tmaurer But as we fear .thii Vill not ITdone Sicle lU wC C66d *° -. explain 111 * final lcle yfaat concessions the evening §Jf t ers t^ ked fo £ year, andi-to show •that ■ the granting of them would not would hot ‘entail any dimmution of revepneto the Dftjfcrtmeht. *